The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionReason suffers in our brawling society
Sep. 02, 2010
Most of the stories about the flap over the planned Islamic Center in New York refer to the debate over a Ground Zero mosque. The reality is that the matter hardly qualifies as a debate. It is, instead, the latest example of the degree to which our public discourse has become stripped of reason and fact and driven by mindless politics and ideology.
To begin, take those who say we should all be tolerant of what proponents of the Park51 venture emphasize is a cultural or community center. We agree wholeheartedly with their position. But, caught up in the fervor of argument, they contend that what is involved is not a mosque. That’s not true. The imam who is spearheading the effort, the Web site devoted to Park51 and the project in lower Manhattan, as well as the developer of the site say that a mosque is part of the plan. That fact is easily available. So, please, it is a mosque and there’s no need to try to minimize or hide the fact.
The question is not whether the center will include a mosque, but whether irrational fear and hatemongering should prevent responsible adherents of the Islamic faith from building a center on property they own. These are people who have contributed to the community, who have been tapped by the government as important agents of tolerance and who have been heralded by leaders of other faiths. Unless we have reached the point of equating all of Islam with its most extreme and violent elements, what’s to debate?
A deeper question for all of us, however, is how long reasonable people (we go out on a limb here, trusting that reason might still have a seat at the table) will allow public discourse to be hijacked by lonely ranters who, in another era, would have been left the option of writing windy, disgruntled and largely unpublished letters to the editor. Today their delusions are amplified by a nondiscriminating World Wide Web and by the voracious appetites of 24/7 screamers on cable TV and radio.
In the growing universe of Islamaphobia, President Obama is a Muslim, Islam is out to embarrass the United States by building the mosque in Lower Manhattan, and we are warned about terror babies. In that universe, which fills the need of feeding the hysteria beast, a Kim Lehman, one of dozens of possible examples, is given credibility as someone who might influence the national conversation. You’re forgiven if you come up blank on that name. She is a person of some note in the politics and Catholic world of Iowa. We don’t know if she trades in non-truths very often. In this case, however, Lehman, who for some segments of the Catholic community would have impeccable credentials -- she’s a member of the Republican National Committee, head of Iowa Right to Life and on the board of the Iowa City-based John Paul II Stem Cell Research Institute -- was able to project well beyond Iowa the non-truth that Obama told Muslims that he is a Muslim. Seriously, she said that.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
It was in response to a Politico.com piece on polls that showed that despite Obama’s well-documented troubles with the pastor of a Christian church that he had been attending for years and multiple declarations of his Christianity, a growing segment of the population believes he is Muslim. The information age is no match for willful ignorance.
Lehman accused Politico of covering up for Obama and (of course) in a tweet said, “BTW he personally told the muslims that he IS a muslim. Read his lips.”
She was referring to Obama’s speech in Cairo in which he spoke of his father’s faith and the fact that he had spent several years as a child in Indonesia, where he became familiar with the rhythms of a majority Islamic society. That paragraph of the speech, however, began with the unqualified declaration, “I’m a Christian.”
The significance in all of this is not what faith Obama professes but that Lehman and others in her party, most notably Newt Gingrich on the Islamic center, would feel free to spread hysteria and falsehood without fear of reprisal. Within hours, Lehman’s claims were transmitted through major Web sites and such national publications as USA Today. They may have noted the correctives to her non-truths, but all the same they reported her incorrect assertions more for the political jolt they contained than in wonder of how anyone in a responsible position could so blithely trade in such stupidities.
More than half a century ago, the noted Jesuit thinker John Courtney Murray, speaking of deeper currents in the flow of U.S. culture, warned that a “certain principle of cohesion” in the culture “has pretty well perished. And nothing has taken its place. Our culture is heterogeneous to the point of being chaotic, and ‘truth’ is what every man individually thinks it is.”
It is at a shallower level today, perhaps, that Murray’s analysis applies to the current state of political discourse. Our technology, which holds so much potential for good, has in the matter of public debate and discussion served only to turn the heterogeneous into an endlessly fractured and brawling society that is more in love with its arguments for their own sake than with any pursuit of truth.
A new Islamic center and mosque in Lower Manhattan is the least of our problems.
mindless politics and
mindless politics and ideology
So that is what we are to make of the feelings of those who lost loved ones on 9/11/2001?
Come on, NCR, you can do better.
I have friends who lost loved ones there.
I sat in New Jersey, helplessly dialing the cell-phone of a loved one who just happened to be doing business in Lower Manhattan that fatefull day. I dialed for hours on end until the welcome "I'm okay" call came hours later.
It seems to me that while there is political hay being made here, there is also a certain amount of trivializing of actual and legitimate concerns.
While there is an amendment to the US Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, there isn't one that establishes sensitivity. In many countries without the former, I suspect there would have been no question of "rights" to build at the site. And this includes many places that are considered to be both "progressive" and "democratic."
Perhaps if mainstream Islam had been more vocal in abhorring what fundamentalist Islam did on 9/11, there would be more tolerance of the location of the Cultural Center. Pehaps it might even be embraced. But mainstream Islam was mostly silent.
Somehow I think NCR is
Somehow I think NCR is definition of intlerance is "all those who do not affirm all aspects of all our editorials"
Anyways.....
Any support here for a christian oriented Cavalry Museum and Pioneer Life Center at Wounded Knee?
Or maybe such a project should be built at another location?
The argument that the
The argument that the developers of the mosque/community center near (not at) Ground Zero should be sensitive to those who lost loved ones on 9/11 assumes that the building and its purpose is somehow unacceptable and offensive on its face. How can a place of worship of any kind be unacceptable by itself? If those who plan to build the center were supporters of terrorism, then the intended worship center would be more than offensive; it would be completely unacceptable to all Americans. No one is in favor of a center that would support terrorism in any fashion. But this center is far from that. There seems to be a continuing confusion in this nation between ordinary American citizens who are Muslims and terrorists who are Muslims. There seems to be no similar confusion between Baptists who are decent Americans and "Baptists" who belonged to the KKK and lynched black men as recently as half a century ago. No one would refuse to have a Baptist house of worship erected somewhere because some of its members were racists, or because not enough Baptist leaders stood up to condemn the racism and racist murders. Like all Americans, I sympathize with the 9/11 families, and wish them no further pain, but if they suffer pain because they have confused decent Americans who happen to be Muslims with terrorists who also happen to be Muslims, then I think the best thing we can do for them is help clear up the confusion and stop using this issue for political purposes.
The question is "What would
The question is "What would Jesus do?" Mourn the tragic loss of innocent people at the hands of crazed Islamic fundamentalists but also welcome the Muslims who are citizens of this country to exercise their constitutional rights. The article was about the crazies who just love to hear their own voices making outlandish statements without regard to the truth of their statements and the mindless sheep who jump on their bandwagons. How would Jesus handle this?
The editorial's last three
The editorial's last three paragraphs seem to me to be spot on. We face genuine peril if our communication and even our facts themselves become fractured, with every viewpoint surrounded by a little fortress of unexamined partial truth.
I believe it is fundamental to sustaining our National core values and to the constitution itself to oppose this rush toward demonizing Islam. That said, I am struggling in my family life with the effects of this controversy on my relationship with a dear and valued cousin. (I'll name him Ron) My bond to him makes me want to try to listen with some patience and compassion when he launches on an anti-mosque rant with which I strongly disagree.
Ron is firmly convinced (supported by a fortress of Fox Facts) that parts of the Koran impel Islam toward undermining and ultimately conquering Christianity, and thus prudent people in his view must resist this danger. His news sources support and encourage this view and discourage tolerance. It seems to me to be an echo chamber of fear, and I'm at a loss for a way to turn off the echo chamber and have a calm, respectful conversation about the issue with someone I both differ with and value very much.
Trying to read the editorial through Ron's eyes made the dismissive language in the editorial toward those who are full of fear and mistrust of Islam painful to read. These people are more than lonely, ranting, disgruntled and marginalized. They are our brothers and sisters, afflicted by a set of anxiety producing thoughts based on fragments of truth and exploiting human fears of loss and otherness. This editorial's dismisive spirit seemed out of place in a discussion of the importance of tolerance and in a publication that I treasure for its respect for differing views.
We need to work hard to avoid our own echo chambers that undermine the critical need for bridge building between Christians Jews and Muslims are enhanced if the people who want the bridges built fasion echo chambers of their own.
That said, thank you for today's article and editorial for raising the issue in a thoughtful way.
Your position speaks of
Your position speaks of politics and not religious tolerance so I will comment in kind. It seems to me that both political parties are guilty of reason~free accusations of the other and have reduced the level of debate to junior high bantering. You too I am afraid are falling into the same dirty bath water. Our country faces Procrustean problems requiring Socratic solutions not divisive diatribes.
Post new comment